Teaching Methods

Press, Volume XCV, Issue 28258, 22 April 1957, Page 3

Teaching Methods

Sir,—May I comment on thd report of the address of Mr W. J. Cartwright in today’s paper? Mr Cartwright gave a list of the aims of education in the following order: first, development of good moral character; second, citizenship; third, development of good reasoning powers; fourth, training in reading, writing and arithmetic. While agreeing that all four of these are sound aims, I must record my disagreement with their order of importance at school. Had the order been applied to the development of the child at home and at school, I would have agreed. Considering, however, that at least half the responsibility for the development of good morals and good citizenship rests with the parents, and part of the responsibility for developing reasoning powers rests with the parents, while the three “tool” subjects are the sole reponsibility of the school, I think his sequence should be reversed. —Yours, etc., J. C. MARTYN. April 18, 1957.

Sir, —In answer to “As Ye Sow,” I do not know whence the idea of the “fluent” method came, nor have I ever heard of such a method. The all-important condition when asking children to write something is that it should be written for a real purpose and to a real reader. One very fluent child might write a serial, say, for a monthly magazine, but it need not resemble “As Ye Sow’s” listening fare. Far from credit being given for pages filled, our five and six-year-olds write one-sentence stories correctly before proceeding further. This “correct sentence” principle is emphasised throughout the school. If transcription is used as “As Ye Sow” relates, it is not part of the syllabus, and I agree with him on its value. I try to teach English to children who say, “I don’t do nuflink good,” copying parents who went through the unhappy “obedience through fear” education scheme. —Yours, etc.,

FOR THE DEFENCE. April 13, 1957.